Transcript for 595_tony_martignetti_nonprofit_radio_20220613.mp3

Processed on: 2022-06-10T20:18:31.028Z
S3 bucket containing transcription results: transcript.results
Link to bucket: s3.console.aws.amazon.com/s3/buckets/transcript.results
Path to JSON: 2022…06…595_tony_martignetti_nonprofit_radio_20220613.mp3.763734979.json
Path to text: transcripts/2022/06/595_tony_martignetti_nonprofit_radio_20220613.txt

[00:01:40.64] spk_0:
Hello and welcome to Tony-Martignetti non profit radio big non profit ideas for the other 95%. I’m your aptly named host of your favorite abdominal podcast. Oh, I’m glad you’re with me. I’d suffer with blended vaginitis. If you inflamed me with the idea that you missed this week’s show appealing to tomorrow’s major donors, There’s $50 trillion North America by 2050 enriching today’s millennials and generation Z let’s talk about cultivation and fundraising strategies to reach these generations. My guest is Najid Kassem from kila. This is part of our coverage of the 2022 non profit technology conference hosted by N 10 On Tony’s take two. Trepidation about new york city, we’re sponsored by turn to communications pr and content for nonprofits. Your story is their mission turn hyphen two dot c o And by 4th dimension technologies I. T infra in a box. The affordable tech solution for nonprofits. tony-dot-M.A.-slash-Pursuant Just like 3D but they go one dimension deeper here is appealing to tomorrow’s major donors. Hello and welcome to tony-martignetti non profit radio coverage of 22 N. T. C 2022 nonprofit technology conference hosted by N 10 with me now is Najid Qasem Ceo and founder of Kayla Najid, welcome back to nonprofit radio

[00:02:18.54] spk_1:
Thanks so much Tony and just for the folks that are listening because I might have a conflict I’m also on the board of directors at N10 and so really really proud to be part of the governance team at antenna and grateful to all of those of you who attended NTC this past, I guess almost a month ago now. Wonderful.

[00:02:31.14] spk_0:
Thank you for thank you for letting me know. We have Miko Whitlock and Jason shim. I have to see if they’re still on, but we’ve got, we’ve got Beth Kanter coming up. Um,

[00:02:32.86] spk_1:
I mean those are, those are my people, that’s my tribe. So you’ve got a great, great lineup coming up

[00:02:57.34] spk_0:
well. And you’re on the, you’re on the board of a terrific organization. Any sample ward is our technology and social media contributor. So she’s on many times a year sharing her wisdom on, on those subjects. We’re gonna talk about your seminar topic. Great transfer of wealth, how to reach the next generation.

[00:03:00.54] spk_1:
Absolutely.

[00:03:07.04] spk_0:
And you say you’re in your description that there’s a $50 trillion dollar transfer coming. What’s, what’s on the horizon?

[00:04:22.34] spk_1:
Well, you know, I think a lot of the topic is just about the fact that boomers and those, the generation, the great generations as I like to call them, are starting to, to, to find peace and move on to whatever happens in the next stage of our lives and you know, as well as they pass our grand, my grandparents passed away. Um, the last couple of years and you see that generation, my parents are starting to get older and thinking about the next, you know, the next chapter of their lives and so for those of us that are gen, x, gen y and I guess gen z is now, um, you know, a lot of money ultimately is going to transfer between generations, the boomers and their parents Postwar really generated absurd amounts, like, like, you know, unthinkable amounts of wealth and, and that’s all transferring and there’s a bunch of really interesting factors that are, that are going to change how giving is done. What’s gonna happen to that? Just the demographic, you know, general demographics in the United States and so, you know, a lot of money is going to change hands and, and that’s going to have a profound impact on getting because for a whole host of reasons we’ll talk about today.

[00:04:25.00] spk_0:
Yeah, So you’re expecting that millennials are going to grow the

[00:04:28.50] spk_1:
wealth that’s

[00:04:30.28] spk_0:
left to them. Well, if they spend it, then we’re hoping they’re gonna be giving it away because otherwise we have nothing to talk about it. If they’re all buying super yachts, then you and I may as well end right now, shut the mics

[00:04:43.04] spk_1:
off. I mean, for the sake of humanity, I really hope that they’re not just buying superyachts. How about that?

[00:04:49.40] spk_0:
Okay, right. Super yachts, private

[00:04:51.42] spk_1:
islands.

[00:04:53.18] spk_0:
You and I

[00:04:54.38] spk_1:
can’t possibly conceive of tony

[00:05:04.04] spk_0:
Okay, I hope not. I hope it doesn’t go that way. Alright. Otherwise, like I said, you know, you and I are done in three minutes. Okay, let’s go on the safe assumption on the humanitarian and um magnanimous assumption that uh, they’re gonna be giving a lot of this wealth away and, and they’ll be growing it too. Right?

[00:05:16.14] spk_1:
Absolutely.

[00:05:21.44] spk_0:
So you’re encouraging us to focus well before we get to the, you know, what to do, how to reach these folks.

[00:05:25.94] spk_1:
What

[00:05:41.94] spk_0:
are, what are some of these factors that you alluded to? Why are you expecting? Why? I think the, the estimates I’ve seen of transfer from baby boomers to millennials is not 50 trillion. I’ve seen 20-30 trillion or something like that. But you’re saying so in

[00:06:00.54] spk_1:
20, in 2014, um, um, For Boston College or some researchers at Boston College did a research and their prediction was 58 trillion would, would be transferred to the next gen. And that I think it includes gen x and gen y and ultimately gen z. So it’s not just millennials would be in the amount of 58 trillion, but when we’re talking 30 40 50 ultimately, I think it’s the same. It doesn’t really matter. It’s just a huge amount of money.

[00:06:28.14] spk_0:
It is. Okay. And so you’d like us to approach are younger donors Because we’re talking about, we’re talking about anybody 60 and under, where, you know, I

[00:06:41.44] spk_1:
would say like when does gen x start 50 and under maybe probably 55. I don’t know whatever gen x is. But yes, I think millennials are the the the most commonly, um, the most commonly thought about populist, But ultimately I think, you know, the age of the internet, the age of artificial intelligence, all of these kinds of things are, are, are ushering in new ways to engage donors. And I think that’s the crux of it.

[00:06:59.74] spk_0:
Okay, okay, now you’re using millennials and gen X interchangeably.

[00:07:18.54] spk_1:
No, No, No Gen X is what 1965-1980? Millennials are 1982, Some say 2000, some say 96. And then gen, Gen Z is people that are too young for me to think about.

[00:07:31.34] spk_0:
Okay, we’re not there yet. Um, Alright, what, what’s your, what’s your advice around talking to these? Um, millenials and gen xers?

[00:09:03.54] spk_1:
Yeah, I think you asked a great question previously and I’ll get to this question, but let’s talk about why they’re different because I think that’s really important to note. There’s a few factors that are, that are super interesting. The first one is, household sizes are smaller and you might think, why does that matter? Well, there are fewer millennials and gen Z s than there were their parents. And so between, I think it’s from 1962 around today or 2018 or whenever this data was published, Household size in the us has gone from 3.6 people per family to 3.1 people. Now that might be only half a person, but that’s a substantial number of people. And what it means is the people inheriting money are actually gonna be fewer, right in terms of their populace, but they’re gonna have more capacity in terms of their wealth. And so I think this data point is actually quite um, it’s interesting, it’s a little bit terrifying in some ways because you know, you’re gonna organizations, the sector as a whole is going to have to seek, you know, a a lot more from individual people as opposed to being able to diversify in the same way. I think that’s a very interesting piece of data and one that I think is going to change the dynamic, especially of major gifts because, you know, currently you think about the people, the high net worth individuals, the families, they care about health care or they care about this or there’s a lot of yours, Right? I think with that next generation there’s gonna be a lot of ants because there’s less people inheriting larger amounts of money. And I think excuse me, that’s quite profound. Don’t you think tony I

[00:09:25.94] spk_0:
do. I think I have a person, times tens, the many tens of millions of exactly that we have in this country that’s significant. Uh, you know, we’ve always thought of the average family as, you know, a family of four. All right, so you’re saying

[00:09:28.56] spk_1:
you’re

[00:09:41.34] spk_0:
saying the average is 3.6, but look 3.6 rounds to 43.1, barely, barely, barely three. So, you know, with 3.6 and four, 3.1 is a big difference.

[00:10:03.74] spk_1:
Absolutely. And think about it like this, if somebody, you know, earns $250 million over their life and they built a portfolio of real estate and wealth and influence ultimately. And they take that and they go to one kid, okay, let’s say each kid, you know, 100 25 million, but when one child is inheriting all that money, your major donor pool is ultimately getting smaller and and so now they have more power, they have more influence, they have actually ability to write bigger checks, but organizations are gonna have to do better at collaborating to generate these things because whether we like to admit it or not in the sector, tony

[00:10:20.21] spk_0:
Another, the other 125 million goes to the Super Yacht.

[00:10:23.84] spk_1:
Of course, sorry, tony slipped my mind. So

[00:10:27.56] spk_0:
there we are. So we’re done again again, we’re done. One kid and one super yacht, there’s your 250. Alright,

[00:10:33.59] spk_1:
You just you just cut generosity and a half and I think we started, Alright,

[00:10:37.34] spk_0:
let’s reduce the super yacht, you know, let’s say in

[00:10:40.44] spk_1:
70

[00:10:44.94] spk_0:
five, let’s do 75 million on the Super Yacht. Another 50. Another 50 to be very generous

[00:12:26.14] spk_1:
with. I’m gonna cut you off because I’d like to share a couple more pieces of data that are useful. The first one, is that, Is that migration has changed over the past kind of 30, 40 years Kids or kids in that 3.1 case right, families are actually staying more geographically close together. And that was especially heightened during the pandemic, where 52% of people aged 18 or 29 were actually at home with their folks in 2020. Now, if you look at data from Um, I think it’s 2004 is when it starts people, both seniors. And so like the parents of these boomers who many of them have passed now, but also the kids of these boomers are staying closer together, which means, you know, they’re more integrated into their families. And what that at least the research that we read and I understood or interpreted was that that can actually mean that maybe people are more aligned with their parents, beliefs or they’re more engaged with them? Or at least they certainly know their parents interests better. Now. The question we’re going to have to figure out is is that going to make them more likely to continue the legacies? Let’s say I I’m I’m let’s say there’s a high net worth family. Okay. And they’ve spent years giving to poverty alleviation? Well, these kids or kids that inherit this money because they’re closer to those parents, both geographically and, you know, in many other ways, are they going to continue that legacy? Are they going to rebel against it when they give? And it’s a question we don’t know the answer to, but it’s an interesting piece of data well,

[00:12:31.04] spk_0:
which also leads to, uh, you know, our our subject of appealing to these

[00:12:32.07] spk_1:
folks

[00:13:45.64] spk_0:
so that they don’t, by default, abandon the philanthropy of their, of their parents. I mean, they may do it consciously, but you don’t want it to just happen because you never gave it a shot to, to avoid it from happening. It’s time for a break. Turn to communications. They’ll develop your media strategy for you. What are the parts of that? It starts with identifying your core messages then defining those channels, those outlets where those messages ought to be heard. The places where you want to be known as a thought leader turn to will do the legwork to approach those outlets and as they close opportunities for you, craft your message appropriately to the specific audience you’re gonna be talking to. That is a media strategy. That’s what turned to communications can do for you because your story is their mission turn hyphen two dot C. O now back to appealing to tomorrow’s major donors because I want to keep talking about the trends before we get to the Yeah. And I think there’s one

[00:14:14.84] spk_1:
interesting one that we can’t forget and that’s women outlive men, um, by like, I think it’s like five years on average in the US now. So it’s like, that’s a, that’s like, you know, a meaty 56789% of people’s lives. Right? And so it’s interesting because unlike, you know, unlike, unfortunately similar to many other things in our history, you’ve kind of focused on like older white men that’s been like, you know, kind of it’s you see it in representation in politics on boards of directors and ceo position in funding for investments, whatever it might be.

[00:14:27.65] spk_0:
Call it what it is. We’re talking about sexism.

[00:15:27.04] spk_1:
Sure, look, I’m a person of color. I I don’t and my wife’s a person of color who is a woman. She has it way worse tonight. Right? And so the interesting thing is my wife’s gonna be gonna outlive me almost for certain. I mean for sure in my case, but, you know, demographically as well. And so philanthropy forget about just the transfer of wealth. The transfer of wealth is going to be inter mediated by the transfer from men who are dying at, you know, whatever 70 something to women who are probably dying 56 years later. And so philanthropy is going to be affected by the fact that decision making historically and giving has been made by the primary breadwinners. But as we see more women taking positions and leadership making more money. We see women inheriting money, they’re gonna give differently. And I don’t think we exactly know how that is yet. But that’s like I said, it’s like a stepping in the in the in the transfer, right? So I did a point that’s super relevant to this conversation.

[00:15:40.94] spk_0:
There is research about the way women give being different than the way men give. They want to be more involved. Uh, they were more involved in in how the money is used. Um, it’s less transactional for them. And uh,

[00:15:45.73] spk_1:
that’s interesting. I didn’t know that.

[00:16:06.54] spk_0:
Yeah. And um, they like, you know, they like to have more of a role in how it’s spent. Um, and it’s, yeah, I don’t, I think there’s, there’s other research to that. They like to be not only involved in how what their gift is is going to do, but be involved in the organization generally. So maybe they’re giving they’re giving what we’re talking about major donors, I think is what

[00:16:17.80] spk_1:
the research

[00:16:18.85] spk_0:
research is. Um, but they’ll also be, they’ll increase their volunteering with your

[00:16:23.94] spk_1:
organization, which

[00:16:27.64] spk_0:
may have nothing at all to do with their giving. Uh, they again, less transactional more, much more relational when it’s when

[00:16:33.69] spk_1:
it’s and I think what’s interesting is like, there isn’t much data on that yet, Right. Because of the demographic realities and the power dynamics that have been so, so unfortunate. And so you see

[00:16:44.44] spk_0:
like, Yeah,

[00:16:50.04] spk_1:
and that’s, I think you’re gonna see more of the research and ultimately more from that because it’s valuable, you know,

[00:17:00.64] spk_0:
the sexism in fundraising is, uh, I think long standing and obviously shortsighted, um, not just in fundraising, right.

[00:17:03.23] spk_1:
tony and everything, to be honest.

[00:17:05.64] spk_0:
Absolutely, yeah.

[00:18:37.84] spk_1:
But what’s interesting is there’s also been and I’m not, you know, I want to kind of move on because there’s also been quite a significant ageism in fundraising. You said it yourself, we spend, what is it 80% of our time on the top? 20% of donors? I think that’s the math that everyone teaches at fundraising school. Um, but what’s interesting is that’s shortsighted ultimately. Yes, I understand it completely. I really do. But what is interesting is, and this is something I touched on in my lecture 10 10 was, you know, the investment in youth giving has actually been minimal to be honest, because it hasn’t seen us providing as much instant return on investment, which is true. It’s a long game, not a short game, right? And but youth, the youth, especially in the context of this transfer of wealth, are going to inherit all that money. And if you haven’t laid your groundwork, you can’t suddenly show up at their door and young people giving even if they don’t have wealth yet or at all. But yet for the sake of this conversation is different. A couple of interesting trends. The first one is young people and I say this millennials I think is the research that I’m quoting are much more influenced by their peers. So young people, I think the data point is our 46% more likely to donate if a co worker does and 65% more likely to volunteer if a co worker does. That’s fascinating to me because it actually it’s a social activity in a weird way. You know, the power, you know, we’ll talk about social media maybe in a bit. But that’s interesting. The second data

[00:18:45.66] spk_0:
point. That’s Yeah. So that’s just that’s co workers, not even necessarily friends.

[00:18:51.84] spk_1:
I assume the data is similar for friends,

[00:18:55.34] spk_0:
friends giving up their birthdays, friends doing peer to peer campaigns.

[00:19:06.54] spk_1:
Well, I think, and I think I have a peer to peer data point that in my notes, let me just see if I can pull it up. I’ll see if I can find it. But let’s keep going. Yeah,

[00:19:12.64] spk_0:
Okay. But coworkers. That’s that’s quite an affinity for co worker giving.

[00:20:19.84] spk_1:
But and you know, we see it, look, I have a lot of young millennials in all my staff and they’re wonderful and amazing people and they’re definitely, you know, whenever something personal giving, that’s the other point. The second point, this is actually a nice segue giving us much more personal to millennial generation. And that has a couple of ramifications for example, to segue from our previous conversation When you know, we have, I think we have staff from 15 countries at Kayla um, on our team born who are born in 15 countries. And so, you know, whether it’s an issue area they care about or something happening in in a in a home or or former place of theirs, they share the plight and also opportunities to engage, right? I think this is a beautiful part of our culture because it helps, you know, But I can, I can watch this in action. I can see I’ve made donations because our coworkers feels an affinity or a passion or, or a sense of connection to a cause. And so, you know, I think that is interesting because I’ve watched it kind of firsthand, right, tony I think that’s super. That’s it kind of reinforces from a non data perspective kind of qualitatively exactly what this data point is showing

[00:20:51.14] spk_0:
interest. But I think, you know, what else, you know, uh, anecdotally I’m a young baby boomer and I’ve never done that. I’ve never given because a coworker gate, I mean I haven’t, haven’t had coworkers for something like 20 years, but back when I did for the short time that I did and I could stand being an employee of someone else. I, I never gave for that reason.

[00:22:47.24] spk_1:
Well, and I think the social media thing is, is I can’t find the data point and I apologize, but I think it’s essentially the same thing. It’s that folks are influenced, not in a bad way, but like folks are inspired is a better way to put it from their communities ultimately. And it’s not church or synagogue or mosque or united way as much or community centers anymore. It’s what they’re seeing on social media, what matters most of their friends and what that actually is kind of segue. Me too is that they’re giving is much more personal for millennials than it was. You know I say our generation I’m right at the cusp of being a millennial but I consider myself at least emotionally outside of it. And so things like organizational status, tax deductibility, organizational legitimacy are much less at the forefront of their decision making. They you know the rise of go fund me where people are giving to people directly the rise of um of of of not having the intermediary of an organization. Um the rise of not carrying the fact that they’re not going to get a tax receipt which is gonna offset a percentage of their donations. Millennials aren’t necessarily looking for that break or something tangible. They want that feeling of making an impact right? There’s a huge feel. It’s it’s why we see the rise of you know be corpse attracting more staff and the why that almost every millennial says when you’re looking for a job impact is a part of that calculus. And so you see those I’m gonna go out and say values of a generation applying themselves or or or or showing their face in giving in a very different way from from me and you and our parents and I think that’s very interesting.

[00:24:09.24] spk_0:
It’s time for a break. Fourth dimension technologies. Their I. T. Solution is I. T. Infra in a box it’s the I. T. Buffet, it’s budget friendly. It’s holistic. You pick what you need and you leave the rest behind the different components that are available. I. T. Assessment, multi factor authentication for security, other security methods, cost analysis of where you’re standing, what you’re spending money on the help desk and there’s more you choose what’s right for your I. T. Budget for your I. T. Situation as it exists. Like they’ll help you fill the gap between where you are and where you want to be. That’s the I. T. Infra in a box. Fourth dimension technologies tony-dot-M.A.-slash-Pursuant D. Just like three D. But they go one dimension deeper. Let’s return to appealing to tomorrow’s major donors. Let’s turn to what nonprofits can do to huh exploit this and using exploitation as in a non pejorative sense. Take advantage of or

[00:24:09.64] spk_1:
C the opportunity I think.

[00:24:15.14] spk_0:
Yeah in the data and then the and then the trend.

[00:24:17.12] spk_1:
Yeah.

[00:24:18.01] spk_0:
And you know I think enormous wealth transfer. So let’s talk about the

[00:26:02.74] spk_1:
really low hanging fruit like the most boring fruit that you could possibly and and and that’s like you know when high net worth individuals give for major donors for major giving. Excuse me as major donors. They don’t see it as I. Samuel l smith is making the donation. It’s me the smith on behalf of my family. The smith family. It’s a family. There’s so much of that family legacy idea and so when organizations are so privileged to get those kinds of donations don’t just look at Sam look at SAm’s wife and look at Sam’s kids and make those connections with the family and that’s for two reasons. One, it’s the right thing to do. Super obvious. But to it’s actually laying the groundwork for, for relationships in the future, share the impact being made, engage the families, the kids. Especially because if you want to get another gift, if you want to, you know, create opportunity from that, it’s going to happen likely either when the donor dies and his or her wife does it or husband, but much more likely their kids continuing that legacy. So engage with them. Like that’s not hard. It’s like, you know, bring them, bring them in, engage them, take them out to lunch instead of just the major donor or the couple or whatever it is. It’s an easy thing to do is encouraging families to come and come around recognizing the families, not just the person and then offering entry points for the kids to um, to engage the organization as volunteers. You know, we talked in the, in the lecture and, and Nathaniel gave a great example about youth councils and, you know, bringing on kind of communities or boards of youth. Often the kind of, yeah, kind

[00:26:08.60] spk_0:
of advisory like

[00:26:09.50] spk_1:
engagement boards I think would be the best way to put it. But yeah,

[00:26:13.03] spk_0:
I’m,

[00:26:15.91] spk_1:
I’m just in our notes, we call them like youth, hold on. I’ll find the exact term we used.

[00:26:22.30] spk_0:
I

[00:26:22.64] spk_1:
think they’re called youth councils,

[00:26:24.24] spk_0:
you’ve counted. But what you would call them for the folks. Youth council,

[00:26:27.60] spk_1:
right?

[00:26:40.94] spk_0:
You want that, you want that perspective in your, in your event planning, certainly in your event planning, but in your fundraising, you know, you may, you may not be thinking of peer to peer well,

[00:26:41.52] spk_1:
and that’s actually my next point

[00:26:43.60] spk_0:
Are in their 30s and 40s, you may not be taking a peer to peer campaigns.

[00:28:54.04] spk_1:
And I have a feeling a big part of there’s a, there’s a symbiosis between that data point on giving from coworkers and peer to peer. So peer to peer kind of had a lot of sex appeal a few years ago, and then people were like, is it that valuable? I’m here to say peer to peer is phenomenally valuable, but not necessarily because people think it is or thought it was. I think a lot of people thought, oh, it’s gonna spike our donation. I’m in it for the long game here. To me, Pierre, Pierre is an entry point to engagement with an entirely new group of donors. I think the numbers in the 80% of people who give through a peer to peer campaign are first time donors to the cause. And, and if you don’t store them effectively, which we can talk about later or on another show or I’m sure you have really qualified folks talking about it, you’re gonna lose that donor to bring them into your giving ecosystem as an organization, but they are an entry point where somebody else is doing the lead generation for you, right? Ultimately that giving about coworkers, I give to every single period of your campaign. One of my staff’s writing in a, you know, um, cycling in an event or running a race or I don’t know whatever it might be. That’s an entry point. That’s an entry point. And it’s an entry point to diversify your donor base to access new donors to get your giving list up and, and we all know in the space, the donor retention is a lot cheaper than donor acquisition. Every data, like there’s absurd amounts of data that show that and peer to peer is a great example and, and it’s how you engage a generation and I’m gonna take it a step further. Millennials like to feel agency, they want to be part of something that goes back to that feeling that personal nature of it. When you get folks engaging with peer to peer, what you’re doing is not just getting money. You’re, you’re, you’re building advocates right? Like the youth council, but much more scalable, ultimately right. You’re getting perspective, you’re building advocates, you’re, you’re finding new ways to get into communities and you’re ultimately empowering social media to do the work for you and why wouldn’t you do that? And I think it doesn’t have to be a big event or a race. It can be, you know, that we can use peer to peer much more creatively to, to think about the long term opportunities, does that make sense? tony I

[00:29:21.34] spk_0:
had a guest, yes, it does have a guest who used the example of a local animal shelter they hosted a dog wedding for and, and you know, again an event to attract younger donors and, and it was phenomenally successful. I know you said it to my

[00:29:44.94] spk_1:
staff, they would all go like all these, it’s just, that’s a lot of them have dogs and you know, you know, it is what it is and it’s, it’s wonderful for them cause a lot of them are having kids, right? tony look at that number kid that 3.6 to 3.1 that someone’s not having Children and so, but that’s a way to encourage an entire demographic, you probably would, wouldn’t get to otherwise. I think that’s brilliant. It’s brilliant.

[00:29:51.44] spk_0:
Her other idea was a bark mitzvah.

[00:29:53.74] spk_1:
I’m

[00:29:57.81] spk_0:
trying

[00:29:59.08] spk_1:
to make a joke with mazel tov like,

[00:30:04.45] spk_0:
like

[00:30:05.12] spk_1:
it’s there, it’s there,

[00:30:19.34] spk_0:
it was all about to share that with her. Um, yeah, very good, very good, very good. Um, yeah, as somebody who thinks that the only good puns are the ones that I think of, but I thought I thought bark mitzvah was very good, yes muzzle top outstanding, very good, very good. Alright, tony I told

[00:30:28.50] spk_1:
you I have now been a dad for two years and so my dad joke. This is just, it’s, it’s coming, it’s rising, you know?

[00:30:40.34] spk_0:
Well you’re still just approaching it because is very good. When the jokes start to be about your genes, you know, then then then they’re then they’re tired. They’re

[00:30:47.42] spk_1:
tired. You’re

[00:30:59.84] spk_0:
just you’re just approaching but but you’re still in the you’re still in the humorous category and not high rolling. You’re not, you haven’t, you haven’t transcended into the eye rolling. Alright.

[00:31:00.18] spk_1:
There’s two more topics I want to touch on briefly before we run out of time.

[00:31:17.24] spk_0:
We have time. Okay. Wait, are these still in the category of what nonprofits can do to, to attract and appeal to and or steward, you mentioned stewardship I want to, you know what be doing do talk

[00:32:23.04] spk_1:
about? I think there’s two factors that we all that. So I I don’t know if this is a do and bring me back onto shore if you need me to. But let’s talk about family foundation and donor advised funds for a second because engaging both of these things is actually critical to capitalizing on the opportunity of of the transfer of wealth. So, you know, for whatever tax reasons, right. A lot of folks might build family foundations or or engage with staff so that they can receive the tax benefits on the event of some kind of liquidation. Whatever it’s selling the company or having a windfall or whatever it might be. But what’s interesting is two things to think about the first one is how are we thinking about that as part of the transfer of wealth? Like what can we do with that? And the second one is, that’s a give now benefit or, you know, benefit other communities. It’s like give now from a tax perspective, give later for the organizations. And so to me, I think laying the groundwork engaging family foundations or high net worth individuals early as that process is starting is going to be super valuable because folks could pass with dispersement quotas very low, at least in Canada. And I think in the States they’re relatively low as well.

[00:32:39.16] spk_0:
Yeah,

[00:33:40.24] spk_1:
5%. So I think Canada just went from 3.5 to 5% in this past budget last week. Actually, well, exactly because their foundations, right. But yeah, so, but the thing is those are, those are like grounds for giving, you know, from a generational wealth because ultimately the kids might be forget about being involved, tony the kids might be actually driving that even when their parents pass on, so the gift has been made, but the, but the, but the beneficiary hasn’t benefited yet. And so it’s this liminal state that if we forget about as organizations and I speak as a board member of six nonprofits or five or whatever the number is, we’re losing an opportunity as part of this transfer of wealth. So laying the groundwork starting to build relationships with both the foundations and the daft or the daft, depending on the structure, getting the kids involved in other ways. Like peer to peer, I think, not forgetting the family foundations and the daft components to generational transfer would be shortsighted.

[00:37:02.03] spk_0:
It’s time for Tony’s take two. I’m returning very shortly To New York City for two weeks. In fact, as you’re listening to this, I’ll be in the city And you know, I lived in the city for 15 years, but I’ve got some trepidation about returning. Um and I don’t think that my situation is any different than yours. You know, returning to old Patterns, old places, it might be an office, might be returning home after having been away through the pandemic. That’s my situation. I haven’t been in New York City since early March 2020. And so things on my mind do I remember how to get around on the subway. I feel like that’s like riding a bicycle. Um I don’t think I’ll get on too many uptown trains when I want to go downtown, but you know, the familiarity, the old alacrity, the smoothness, the comfort, it’s not quite there. I’m gonna have to check check my subway map app more often than I used to where you know, I used to just pop downstairs. Oh yeah, it’s right this way pop pop pop. I know the turn, I know which uh entrance I wanna use. I know exactly where to stand waiting for the train. I don’t have that, that level of comfort anymore. And Covid of course, You know, I did see that. Covid rates are declining in Northeast. But I mean new york city is still a huge city densely populated. So we got some trepidation there. I’m gonna have to be more scrupulous about my masking than uh, than I am here in this little beach town in north Carolina. And then the other part is just, you know, identity. I was a new yorker for 15 years And yes, I, I moved out of New York six years ago. So it’s not, I didn’t move out because of the pandemic. I left several years before, but for two weeks, I don’t know, can I be a new yorker again for two weeks? Is that that allowed? Am I a tourist? I don’t know. I’m, I don’t think I’m an expat new yorker living in north Carolina. I don’t feel like that. No, but am I a tourist returning for two weeks? Interesting. What’s, what’s my identity? How do I fit in former resident? Not, you know, that that’s somewhere higher cash than tourist returning resident, but just for two weeks. So interesting. You know, and I’m sure that you have got lots of these kinds of thoughts going on as you return two old patterns, old places That’s Tony’s take two. We’ve got boo koo, but loads more time for appealing to tomorrow’s major donors with najid Kassem by the way. You’re on five boards, you were dismissed from one of the boards. I’m not at liberty to reveal at this time, but you’ll, they’ll be in touch with you.

[00:37:11.43] spk_1:
Good to know. tony I’ll expect the letter.

[00:37:14.13] spk_0:
Now the donor advised funds and the foundation. Yeah, very good. But when I said, when you know the kids are involved now, um, ultimately, I mean the kids may have already taken over, but ultimately when their baby boomer parents have died, then the kids are gonna be involved, especially in the family

[00:37:38.83] spk_1:
legally required to, to make disbursements. So if you haven’t gotten on the ground game now In 5, 10, 15, 20 years when there are these huge amounts of money, which they constantly have to be giving away, you’re gonna be behind the eight ball and that’s unfortunate position for folks to begin

[00:37:59.33] spk_0:
good. Yeah, no good advice. And that is right in line with what nonprofits can be talking about can be thinking about and and likely acting on. So yes, now you’re, you’re still in that you’re still in the, you’re still in the game.

[00:38:13.82] spk_1:
I’m still, I wanted to end at some point with five weird facts about legacy giving that I found, which I think you would really enjoy. I

[00:38:22.12] spk_0:
probably will. Let’s not, it’s, it’s not the show though. It’s still tony-martignetti non profit radio So hold, hold back with the, with the anarchy and we’ll get, we’ll get to the five points. we still have plenty of

[00:38:27.56] spk_1:
time

[00:38:31.02] spk_0:
alright, the five, five idiosyncrasies maybe of plan giving or legacy giving as you call it.

[00:38:34.79] spk_1:
And I think which is relevant obviously in the transfer of wealth conversation of course. What

[00:38:49.12] spk_0:
about what about more advice about thinking about acting on younger the younger generations, millennials generation, z you mentioned stewardship, what are we talking about? So

[00:38:51.08] spk_1:
I was just, I was just gonna go there and talk about

[00:38:52.72] spk_0:
community.

[00:39:56.92] spk_1:
So, so I think one of the pieces of advice that Nathaniel especially gave is like the post gift engagement, especially in peer to peer. And I thought that was really interesting because, and it’s two kinds of post of stewardship, the stewardship of the donors who give to peer peer campaigns, which is valuable and we talked about expanding the donor base, but I think what she really drummed down on is how important it is to actually engage with the fundraisers, the folks who are actually doing the period, like, you know, who are the, you know, for those of you who don’t know a peer to peer, you have a group of fundraisers who raise money for the cause and donors make donations in support of those fundraisers and the money goes to the organizations, but the fundraisers, they’re kind of like your champions, right? They’re the ones who are casting a wide net who are sharing and promoting, who are engaging their social media’s and I think one thing that we often forget is to thank the fundraisers, we do a good job of thanking the people with the money fine and maybe we don’t do good enough a job but you write a check general, you’re gonna get a thank you. But the fundraisers are actually your access to market their your go to market strategy, so to speak and so

[00:40:03.19] spk_0:
you’re right. They created the campaign.

[00:40:05.66] spk_1:
Absolutely. They did all your work for you

[00:40:15.91] spk_0:
birthday, whatever. Yes. Yeah. Are we are we are you seeing that? Are we bad at thanking the fundraisers? We are we

[00:41:37.01] spk_1:
are um it’s very automated, it’s thanking for signing up more than thank you for what you’ve done. So a lot of like the impact or or community reporting people often forget the fundraisers and there’s you know, we’ve seen that anecdotally, we’ve seen that with our product and I’ve seen that in some of the research as well. And so where you know, Nathaniel gave this great example, I’m trying to remember but she said send a personalized impact report to the things that the fundraisers care about because generally when you’re signing up as a fundraiser for a peer to peer campaign, you give insight into the things you care about the reasons you’re doing. My mom, you know, my grandmother passed away from acts or my you know, my my aunt did this or or someone at my work struggled with that. And so you’re gonna get some insight into what they care about and if you want them to run these things again to do it participate next year or in subsequent years to get more involved as a donor themselves or a volunteer that follow up is so valuable and make and spending the time Doing it for for each of them, even if it’s 10 minutes, you know, make a call, put their name on an impact report, it’s so little in terms of cost or time, but the value of the return and ultimately that feeling of values align, which was, you know, I’ve tried to come through, come up over and over again through the, you know, this conversation about millennials, they’ll feel valued, they’ll feel values aligned and ultimately it’s the right thing to do, but but also it will help you getting them to get engaged in other ways or or

[00:41:56.31] spk_0:
again. Yeah, Alright, very smart, very savvy. I’m disappointed to hear that we’re not being good about the fundraisers. It’s I

[00:42:17.30] spk_1:
think it’s easy because there’s lots of them and it’s hard because we’re not used to it. Right, peer to peer is relatively new, it’s not built into the muscle memory of us as fundraisers and I think that’s yeah, a lot of organizations, especially mid to large ones are actually getting peer to peer officers now. So you know, you’ve got your major grant donor officer or program manager, you got your recurring donor, you got your peer to peer now because the R. O. I. S. Is so strong both from a brand perspective and from the donation perspective. Right.

[00:42:24.33] spk_0:
Very good. Thank you. All right. When you said you had I think you said you had to

[00:43:45.90] spk_1:
I think I think the stewardship one is interesting and it actually comes to you know again it’s that personalization element what what millennials want to hear however you’re engaging them if they’re the kids of high net worth if they’re part of peer to peer campaigns or if they’re just giving in general as part of the transfer they want to see much more intimately or much more directly what’s happening with the money? Right. What are you know the older generation is like how much are you spending on administration? That’s actually a lot less. They don’t care as much and you can see that because of how they’re giving, what they care about is what actually happened to that money. I don’t care if you use 13 cents or 18 cents or 23 cents for administration. How many malaria nets was I able to get from that or you know what value did my gift or my time bring to the cause that I care deeply about and that subtle difference in stewardship is actually quite substantial in how you treat it. So you know it’s not a budget or or or a financial document that you’re sending as part of stewardship it’s a lot around stories around data on impact and and around around making them feel like they were a part of that, which I think is quite different from what we saw in this boomer and other generations. What do you think? tony

[00:43:50.96] spk_0:
Yeah, no, I agree. I think there’s been less attention to that.

[00:43:56.00] spk_1:
It’s

[00:43:56.78] spk_0:
been it’s been growing, but the boomers are probably dying at a faster rate than they can, they can gain the they can gain the benefit of. I’m one of them, I’m happy to be a younger one.

[00:44:32.29] spk_1:
But but I also think it goes back to the values which we’ve sort of been talking about, right, that different reason for giving, right that the reason people millennials take certain jobs or do certain things or engage with certain, you know, community activities or civil society, it is different. And if we don’t steward differently with that, we’re not only missing an opportunity. We’re kind of not meeting folks where they are.

[00:44:34.29] spk_0:
Look, if, you know, if you’re ignoring this, the difference in the generations, you’re, you’re doing so at your peril. You know, you’re, you’re ignoring critical difference is that there’s a difference between your 70 year old donor and your 40 year old donor

[00:44:48.88] spk_1:
and I don’t want your old donor and

[00:44:51.30] spk_0:
You’re 25-30 year old donor

[00:44:53.59] spk_1:
absolutely and I don’t want it to be like we’re just doing this to get more money. Like as much as that’s easy to do. You want to connect like it’s the right thing to

[00:45:14.49] spk_0:
do. Yeah. Including families has always been, especially in planned giving, but it’s, it’s just, it’s just smart. It’s just smart business, um, engagement, which leads leads to more, more, greater impact, whether it’s volunteering or giving or just thinking well of your cause.

[00:45:23.26] spk_1:
You know, you

[00:45:24.25] spk_0:
know, I don’t give to the organization anymore, but they were very good to me when my mom died,

[00:45:30.19] spk_1:
yep.

[00:45:35.29] spk_0:
All right. All right. The Big five now giving, I will, I, I prefer the phrase planned giving so I’ll tolerate, I’ll not accept, but I’ll tolerate your legacy giving moniker.

[00:45:46.49] spk_1:
This kind of, and I’m gonna type

[00:45:49.97] spk_0:
each

[00:46:47.28] spk_1:
of them back to the conversation we’ve had today. So this isn’t out of nowhere. So first data point is 50% of like of, of planned donors give to their organization for more than 20 years before making a planned gift. So when we talk about engaging folks If you’re 45 or 50 right now, you’re part of that gen x or you’re, you know, you’re an elder millennial. If the, if the data point stays strong 20 years, it’s gotta start now, You know, if you want. And that, that’s why this transfer of wealth is super interesting. Number two donors, aged 44 older represent about 75% of all wills and more than 80% of the total value of all charitable requests made. So again, 44 is a young, it’s, you know, it’s not, we’re not talking people in their seventies when people are thinking about their wills, their thinking about the, when their kids are still in single digits often, right? Like, you know, we, my wife and I did our will when she was pregnant. We didn’t have a will before that, but we, you know, we did our, our will our wills. I guess there’s two of them

[00:46:52.80] spk_0:
was donors, 44 and over represents 75% of all existing wills

[00:46:58.73] spk_1:
and more than 80% of the request

[00:47:07.58] spk_0:
And more than 80% of all right. I guess I’d like to see a finer breakdown. Like that’s 44 and over. You know, What’s, what is 60 and over look like

[00:47:10.18] spk_1:
and I don’t have that off my fingertips. But I would bet it’s even it’s the vast majority. I

[00:47:14.95] spk_0:
would bet I

[00:47:33.48] spk_1:
would bet again, Absolutely, absolutely. Number three, 50% of donors age 50 and over with no Children had charitable estate plans, but among similar donors With Children, only 17% had philanthropic plans. That one was actually quite interesting to me.

[00:47:41.08] spk_0:
Yeah.

[00:47:42.58] spk_1:
So

[00:47:43.91] spk_0:
your, your folks with no Children are better plan giving prospects than your folks with

[00:47:49.55] spk_1:
Children and

[00:47:50.57] spk_0:
There’s, there’s a difference of 33%.

[00:47:56.28] spk_1:
Absolutely, yeah. In terms of the number of them that have wills. Right, Which is fascinating.

[00:48:01.27] spk_0:
That’s the population is have a charitable request in there

[00:48:07.50] spk_1:
will be 30

[00:48:14.67] spk_0:
3% if you’re, if you’re 55 and over, No, 50 and over, You’re 33% more likely to do it if you’re 50 and over and have no Children than you are if you’re 50 and over and had at least one child.

[00:48:36.57] spk_1:
Yes, absolutely. And again, why is this relevant? Because in this transfer of wealth, more and more people are inheriting money who don’t plan to have kids. Right. And that’s super interesting and incredibly relevant. Um,

[00:48:38.77] spk_0:
You know what, that’s even, it becomes more interesting even on another level, because yeah younger folks are less likely to have kids from the current 55 year

[00:48:48.91] spk_1:
olds. So

[00:48:54.57] spk_0:
assuming human nature isn’t, isn’t changing then that the Delta is gonna change between between the population, that doesn’t have Children in the population. That does, because the population that doesn’t have Children is going to grow up.

[00:49:16.17] spk_1:
And you look at that first data point where most people are gonna make requests to folks that they’ve engaged with for 20 plus years. that’s again relevant because more people are not having kids. So you got to engage them earlier. Because if you do the likelihood of you getting a request is, is going to be like you said, the Delta is going to be higher and higher. Right? Very

[00:49:28.23] spk_0:
interesting. And

[00:49:52.27] spk_1:
ultimately Planned gifts from single, never married donors are actually 13% larger than from married donors. So it’s interesting is, again, how do you focus this? This is, this is part of the lecture he gave on like how do you focus your time? Of course, you have unlimited resources. You focus on everybody. But thinking about folks who haven’t been married, um, or are no longer married and without kids, you’re gonna get bigger donations. Right? And, and that’s super interesting. Especially in the context of people not having kids. A lot of this transfer is inter mediated by that,

[00:50:07.06] spk_0:
that those have always been your best planned gift prospects, folks who are unmarried and no

[00:50:11.65] spk_1:
Children.

[00:50:23.46] spk_0:
Um, not to not to exclude others from your program. If you have the, if you have the luxury of knowing who has Children and who never married and a lot of that, you can just find out from, uh,

[00:50:26.19] spk_1:
social media.

[00:51:04.96] spk_0:
Well, yeah, that’s true. Um, then then those are your, those are your, you’re ultimately best prospects. And thank you for using the word Penultimate correctly. I appreciate that so many things. So many people think that penultimate is is the better one comes after the ultimate because its penultimate. So she correctly, thank you for using Penultimate, it’s among my favorite words along with, but the ultimate, it’s the

[00:51:11.86] spk_1:
Ultimate, the Bark Mitzvah. Ultimately Pet owners are 70% more likely to give request than non pet owners.

[00:51:15.06] spk_0:
Pet owners.

[00:51:33.86] spk_1:
So free will, which is a will’s website in the US. It like helps folks create their wills. Did some really interesting data around the charitable giving of pet owners and folks who have pet owners are much more likely to make requests, 70% more likely than non pet owners. So I have no idea how to use that piece of data, but it’s so obscure and so interesting that I included it as my factoid and I’m sharing with you

[00:51:46.06] spk_0:
for folks who are in a, in an animal oriented non profit you know, they know

[00:51:48.68] spk_1:
that a lot

[00:51:49.97] spk_0:
of pet owners are very concerned about the life of their pets after their own deaths.

[00:51:55.36] spk_1:
So

[00:51:56.60] spk_0:
they’ll make, they’ll often make

[00:51:58.39] spk_1:
gifts for

[00:51:59.55] spk_0:
the care of their

[00:52:29.65] spk_1:
pets. Interesting. I, I think what’s interesting is going back to millennials and the demographic data that we’ve seen as most folks, you know, a lot of people who don’t choose to have Children choose to get a pet. It’s like a pretty common, you know, trend, I think. And so, you know, that’s interesting because there they still have a lot of love and they’ve made a choice which is so personal and they want to continue a legacy, Not just for their pets, for what you said, but rather just in general. And so they see their way to, to continue. They don’t have Children. So their legacy is gonna live through their gifts. And I think that’s, that’s, again, speaking to the 3.6 to 3.1 number of people in the household and that number continuing to, to change.

[00:52:49.05] spk_0:
Thank you very much.

[00:52:51.52] spk_1:
Let’s

[00:52:59.35] spk_0:
let’s take care of a couple of things when it first, don’t you shout out to Nathaniel Fung, since you mentioned a few times, So

[00:53:24.35] spk_1:
was was my co presenter on this. Um I got to give a lot of the nerdy theory that I shared with you all today, but Nathaniel did a phenomenal job of sharing the case studies that she’s done. She spent a lot of years, decades I think, working in health foundations and health giving and she just brought incredible examples of youth councils and examples of campaigns and how they started them. And so it was, it was an absolute treat to, to speak alongside her.

[00:53:32.65] spk_0:
Nathaniel is director of philanthropy, where at

[00:53:32.82] spk_1:
the BC Women’s Foundation

[00:53:34.75] spk_0:
Women’s hospital

[00:53:36.48] spk_1:
british Columbia, women, women’s hospital, where my son was born.

[00:53:41.35] spk_0:
And Kayla, you give it a shot for Kayla,

[00:54:30.04] spk_1:
I mean, always happy to, to to serve such an incredible institution um for those of you who don’t know, Kayla is, is fundraising um intelligence and donor management tools, built, you know, with the most powerful, exciting technology. But built by fundraisers myself, being just one of many and ultimately our goal is to help folks, you know, have a great um donor management experience, to help increase the predictability and to help nonprofits grow. They’re giving it’s a Crm, it’s an intelligence tool. It’s got beautiful and amazing forms you can pick and choose if you want crm, you want forms, you want intelligence. But ultimately it’s a it’s a technology company with the sector at its at its core and I encourage everyone to to always take a look at kayla k e l a dot com.

[00:54:37.34] spk_0:
Dot com, awesome dot com. Very good. Look

[00:54:38.81] spk_1:
at

[00:54:43.18] spk_0:
dot com. It definitely rhymes what? Almost com

[00:54:49.84] spk_1:
Alright.

[00:54:52.84] spk_0:
And he’s the ceo and founder, thank you very much for sharing your ideas.

[00:54:55.18] spk_1:
tony always a pleasure and hope to see you. Hopefully not two years from now, maybe before that.

[00:55:00.40] spk_0:
No, thank you. Well, will you be in you think you’ll be in Denver if it’s actually live?

[00:55:05.47] spk_1:
Yes, yes I will. Next.

[00:55:06.74] spk_0:
NTC 23. NTC I believe I’ll be there too. All right,

[00:55:10.81] spk_1:
wonderful. Thanks. tony

[00:56:29.54] spk_0:
my pleasure and thank you listeners for being with Non profit radio coverage of 22 NTC. Thanks so much. Next week, It’s your RFP process as our 2022 non profit technology conference coverage continues. If you missed any part of this week’s show? I beseech you find it at tony martignetti dot com. We’re sponsored by turn to communications pr and content for nonprofits. Your story is their mission turn hyphen two dot c o And by 4th dimension technologies I T infra in a box, the affordable tech solution for nonprofits, tony-dot-M.A.-slash-Pursuant four D just like three D. But they go one dimension deeper. Our creative producer is Claire Meyerhoff. The shows social media is by Susan Chavez. Marc Silverman is our web guy and this music is by scott Stein. Thank you for that. Affirmation scotty Be with Me next week for non profit radio Big non profit ideas for the other 95 go out and be great.